Suddenly, there's "never been any doubt" that POTUS will strongly endorse a public option in speech

[alcibiades_mystery]

:rofl:

"What? We never for a second doubted that he would endorse a public option! But will he 'twist arms' for it????"

"There's no doubt that Obama will argue for a public option."

"Of course he'll argue for a public option in his speech, but that's just because he knows that the senate will nix it!"

"It's always been clear TO ME that Obama will come out strongly for the public option, but that's not nearly enough!"

:rofl:

This place is HI-larious.

[Jennicut]

1. The latest is the blue dogs have given him political cover..he can say he is for it and

then push against it secretly!!! Yes. I thought only RWers were into crazy, stupid conspiracy theories.

[Kaleko]

34. Conspiracies...

Businessmen only get together for one reason
and that is to conspire against the general public!

- Adam Smith

What's the difference between businessmen and politicians?
You tell me.

[Skittles]

2. it's what happens when they are all over the page

mixed messages with do that

[MrModerate]

3. Practice to deceive = tangled web = fall on face. n/t

[Cha]

4. President Obama has been clear from the start

but people's own interpretations make a much better whine.

And, sucking on the corporatemediawhores' every word never did help.

[demwing]

6. I'm not a cringer on this issue, but Olberman's mood has me worried

I tend to trust the man, and he seems so sure Obama will axe the publilc option. I am a wee worried tonight. Either way, tomorrow will tell us much. Or not.

[Uzybone]

7. You do know Olberman is not a reporter

he doesn't know anymore than you would know by reading the papers and news sites.

I love KO, but he is a TV performer 1st, credible news source 2nd. He is on TV to get his viewers ginned up.

[Cha]

8. I read someone else on Olbermann tonight..

let's see if I can find it.. Nah, it's impossible to find that post in this haystack..but, the gist was that KO was being a worrywort.

And, we all love him and can only hope he's wrong.

[Jennicut]

9. That was me...I think KO can worry to much (and don't get me started on Rachel)

I like them both but they are handwringing a bit too much for my taste.

[Cha]

21. Thanks, Jennicut..I

I knew I had seen that somewhere.:)

President Obama said he needed all our help so maybe all of this is helping.

[ShortnFiery]

17. I think KO is spot on! However, there's a glimmer of hope that the progressive

democrats will "kill the bill" if it doesn't provide a robust Public Option.

A health care bill without a public option provides NO COMPETITION to the bloated insurance companies. It would only serve to fatten their coffers by MANDATING people to buy into insurance.

It don't mean SQUAT to be insured if you GO BROKE paying the premiums while still being denied coverage. :thumbsdown:

[Captain Hilts]

20. Those people have included his own cabinet members. nt

[Vattel]

5. I wish there was more discussion of whether and why

the public option is vital to adequate health care reform. Maybe I'm the only DUer who isn't already an expert on health care reform, but I don't know whether the public option is vital. Unless I misunderstood him, Senator Franken seems to think that a system like Switzerland's might be good (mandated universal coverage, but no public option). Is he right?

[treestar]

16. I am there too - it is only DU disruptors have set this line in the sand

They are looking for an excuse to say President O. "betrayed" them.

There was one post even acting as if Obama took office specifically to help their family with their health problems! They are "heartbroken." (Even though they don't even have confirmation that Obama is willing to "cave" on the public option).

[kenny blankenship]

36. He might be right if he meant adopt ALL of Switzerland's system not just sneaking part of it in

The mandatory insurance coverage in Switzerland is also BY LAW NON PROFIT.

What you are obliged to buy in Switzerland also comes with a mandate on insurance co.s to provide it to you at no profit. Insurance co.s can sell you supplemental insurance and make a profit on that but that is NOT the mandatory insurance.

Nobody's talking about ANYTHING LIKE THAT in this country. That's in fact further "left" than the public option, which would merely compete weakly with for profit insurance.

Banning profit for insurance co.s in the major part of the health care market would be one THE LAST THINGS that insurance co.s and their attack dogs in Congress would agree to. Comparisons of "individual mandate plans" with Switzerland's system that omit this key fact about the Swiss are either dangerously ignorant or downright mendacious.

Long before Switzerland made a law to force individuals to buy health insurance they had passed a law to make primary health care insurance non-profit, which kept it affordable. So when the mandate for individual coverage went into effect 1996, 95% of Swiss citizens were already carrying health insurance. (And then probably most of that 5% remainder would get their insurance covered by government subsidy) That is nothing like the situation in the United States.

And if someone brings up the Netherlands as another example of individual mandates, remember that TWO THIRDS of all Dutch households are receiving government subsidies to help pay for that health insurance. That's on top of subsidies for housing and food for working families. Nobody is talking about anything like that here. The "privatized" Dutch system that's supposedly working so well is no more than three years old. The reputation of the Dutch for universal healthcare stands on previous decades when the state decided everything setting prices, determining procedures, and covering everyone. Covering everyone in the Netherlands DID NOT come in with privatization.

[Whisp]

10. isn't it? I just had to sit back and watch the deju vu all over again

but I was more irritated than amused this time.

[scheming daemons]

11. There's lots of THIS going on by the usual suspects:

Gotta get those goalposts moved!

[Cali_Democrat]

12. LOL!

:rofl:

[NecklyTyler]

13. President Obama is playing chess with the checker playing right wing

Sit back and watch as the master applies his craft

[NecklyTyler]

14. K&R

[treestar]

15. At least the extreme right has the excuse of insanity

The extreme left does not.

[Jakes Progress]

18. We've always been at war with Oceania. nt

[Peacetrain]

19. Explains a lot Lucy...

:rofl:

[OwnedByFerrets]

22. So, what I want to know is if you are going to publicly

apologize for your scoffing when there is NO substantial public option in this bill?

[Spazito]

23. Have you always insisted on a "SUBSTANTIAL" public option when posting about it or...

have you added the word "substantial" recently? I ask because if your previous posts only demanded 'a public option' without the word 'substantial', would that not be changing the goalposts as pointed out by the OP?

[OwnedByFerrets]

24. Actually, if you were to check my posts, I have been screaming for

MEDICARE FOR ALL. But, being realistic, I know that's not going to happen. And now, I feel that even a strong public option wont either. We shall soon see who is right. I damn sure hope and pray I'm very very wrong.

[Spazito]

25. I have taken your advice and did check and found this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4050095&mesg_id=4050570

This post is from as recent as yesterday and is very clear in stating "a public option" and not a "substantial public option". I guess my question has been answered.

[OwnedByFerrets]

26. You are cherry picking your information. Unfortunately,

a very RIGHT WING strategy

[Beetwasher]

27. But Of Course, Only YOU Will Decide What "Strong" And "Substantial" Mean

So any public option that is included will never meet your standards, therefore, the whining will continue.

[OwnedByFerrets]

28. And the plan that "I" have been supporting with all my being...

MEDICARE FOR ALL, would need to meet NO standards. They are built in. Besides, they are not MY standards. THE standard is a plan where NO american will DIE next year because they don't have insurance or can't afford that. WHEN we have that "standard" I will praise it. As long as people continue to DIE, I cant. Can YOU?

[Beetwasher]

29. So You Admit That Pretty Much No Matter What, You Will Continue To Complain?

Got it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

31. MY GOD, how did you pull THAT out of my post?

[Beetwasher]

35. Easy

You want something you won't get, so no matter what's passed (since it won't be single payer, at least not now) you will complain.

[OwnedByFerrets]

38. And I asked YOU a question. If ONE person dies

because of this legislation(or lack thereof), will you still support it? That kind of loyalty, I cant live with. Dont bother answering. I dont care, nor will it make any difference.

[Beetwasher]

39. If There's NO Legislation, How Many Will Die?

What's your point? So, would you prefer NO LEGISLATION at all because it doesn't meet your personal standards? So you ARE willing to accept people dying if it doesn't meet your personal standards?

[Spazito]

30. My question to you was simple, you advised me to look up your prior posts, I did so...

and found the answer to my question which, to repeat, was:

"Have you always insisted on a "SUBSTANTIAL" public option when posting about it or have you added the word "substantial" recently?"

The link with yesterday's post provided the answer. Yesterday, you referred to "a public plan" without using the word "substantial", today you added "substantial".

My question related directly to your post and to the OP so it was hardly cherry-picking. Nice try though.

[OwnedByFerrets]

32. And IF you were NOT cherry picking, you would find

(had you really cared to look) that I have been begging for MEDICARE FOR ALL. Nuff said. You remind me of what just happened to Van Jones. Go find ONE thing that you can take out of context and use that ONE thing to make your argument. Oh well. Believe what you will. Really makes NO difference to me.

[Spazito]

33. From your response, I can only gather you now regret your invitation for me to...

check your prior posts to find the answer to my question seeing as I did, indeed, find the answer and it was not to your liking. So be it.

[musicblind]

37. Dude, it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at this convo on the outside that you are cherrypicking

You may have a point that single payer is not realistically going to happen... but your method of debate is making you look bad and not the person you are debating with.